Should Paramount dump Braga?
cha...@wil.net
Given Brannon Braga's comments about the next coming series, should
he and the current staff of 'Trek helmers be replaced by new people with
new ideas? Should the franchise be put to bed for a few years to give it
some rest?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
ANIM8Rfsk
*************************************************
Less than 7 months to the 21st Century & the new Millennium!
Remember, there is no year zero
in the Gregorian calendar; the 21st Century
and the Third Millennium start in 2001, not 2000.
Franklin Harris
--
Franklin Harris
Pulp Culture Online
www.pulpculture.net
Travers Naran
news:charawn-1407...@dyn29.pm3.wil.net...
>
> Given Brannon Braga's comments about the next coming series, should
> he and the current staff of 'Trek helmers be replaced by new people with
> new ideas? Should the franchise be put to bed for a few years to give it
> some rest?
Braga's head should be severed from his body, boiled and placed on a tall
spike outside the Melrose gates of Paramount as a warning to the next 20
generations of Hollywood hacks that some long-term contracts come with too
high a cost.
After the Narn batsquad are through with his body, you wouldn't find enough
of it for positive identification.
David B.
>
> Given Brannon Braga's comments about the next coming series, should
> he and the current staff of 'Trek helmers be replaced by new people with
> new ideas? Should the franchise be put to bed for a few years to give it
> some rest?
Why bother asking when we know they won't?
Pf2144
years of season five, according to a recent report. Short of some sort of
malfeasance on his part, the cancelation of the next Trek show, or Paramount
being so desperate to fire him that they eat the contract they just gave him --
we're stuck with him. It's a shame, but what's the use of asking Paramount to
can him? It obviously ain't happening at this point.
Klyfix
(Pf2144) writes:
>
>Guys, I hate to break this to you, but Braga is SIGNED for the first three
>years of season five,
Umm, "first three years of season five"? That means, what?
V. S. Greene : kly...@aol.com : Boston, near Arkham...
Eckzylon: http://m1.aol.com/klyfix/eckzylon.html
RPG and SF, predictions, philosophy, and other things.
"I wear the cheese; it does not wear me. - BtVS, "Restless"
norv...@sirius.com
kly...@aol.comedy (Klyfix) wrote:
> In article <20000714222956...@ng-ff1.aol.com>, pf2...@aol.com
> (Pf2144) writes:
>>Guys, I hate to break this to you, but Braga is SIGNED for the first three
>>years of season five,
>
> Umm, "first three years of season five"? That means, what?
Probably that 5th season is so bad, it's gonna feel like it lasts for 3 years...
--
norv...@sirius.com
"...To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
<*> "Ulysses" by Tennyson <*>
David E. Sluss
>Braga's head should be severed from his body, boiled and placed on a tall
>spike outside the Melrose gates of Paramount as a warning to the next 20
>generations of Hollywood hacks that some long-term contracts come with too
>high a cost.
I guess we'll put you in the "Undecided" column.
--
// David E. Sluss (The Cynic) \\ // "I'm impatient with \\
//____ sluss%cynicscorner.org _____\\//__ stupidity. My people have __\\
\\ The Cynics Corner //\\ learned to live without it." //
\\ http://www.cynicscorner.org // \\ Klaatu //
recook77
> he and the current staff of 'Trek helmers be replaced by new people with
> new ideas? Should the franchise be put to bed for a few years to give it
> some rest?
>
If Paramount is really foolish enough to hand Braga a development deal, then
said deal should cover non-Trek series ONLY.
My prediction is that series 5 will probably flounder, esp. when and if it's
competing with shows like Farscape and the forthcoming Andromeda series.
It may be me, but it seems that Hollywood execs are slow to realize when
someone can't deliver the goods. They'll find out soon enough about Berman
and Braga.
--
"God is a very busy god. He may not be there when you want him, but he's
always on time."
Curtis Mayfield
1942-1999
recook77
news:QHSb5.16180$BS1.4...@brie.direct.ca...
> <cha...@wil.net> wrote in message
> news:charawn-1407...@dyn29.pm3.wil.net...
> >
> > Given Brannon Braga's comments about the next coming series, should
> > he and the current staff of 'Trek helmers be replaced by new people with
> > new ideas? Should the franchise be put to bed for a few years to give it
> > some rest?
>
> spike outside the Melrose gates of Paramount as a warning to the next 20
> generations of Hollywood hacks that some long-term contracts come with too
> high a cost.
>
enough
> of it for positive identification.
>
>
to the Paramount executives?
Travers Naran
news:8kq8rl$ba5$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> Travers Naran <tna...@direct.ca> wrote in message
> news:QHSb5.16180$BS1.4...@brie.direct.ca...
> > <cha...@wil.net> wrote in message
> > news:charawn-1407...@dyn29.pm3.wil.net...
> > >
> > > Given Brannon Braga's comments about the next coming series,
should
> > > he and the current staff of 'Trek helmers be replaced by new people
with
> > > new ideas? Should the franchise be put to bed for a few years to give
it
> > > some rest?
> >
> > Braga's head should be severed from his body, boiled and placed on a
tall
> > spike outside the Melrose gates of Paramount as a warning to the next 20
> > generations of Hollywood hacks that some long-term contracts come with
too
> > high a cost.
> >
> > After the Narn batsquad are through with his body, you wouldn't find
> enough
> > of it for positive identification.
> >
> >
> Awwwww, be nice, Travers! With Braga dead, who'll be there to give
hummers
> to the Paramount executives?
Oh, I can give them hummers alright. Phasers set on overload hum, don't
they? >:->
William December Starr
kly...@aol.comedy (Klyfix) said:
>> Guys, I hate to break this to you, but Braga is SIGNED for the first
>> three years of season five, [Pf2144]
>
> Umm, "first three years of season five"? That means, what?
A braino of "series five," i.e., the fifth Trek show, I presume.
Of course, that'll still be confusing to British readers, but that's one
of the prices you pay when you live in a country that uses "series" to
describe a single year's worth of episodes of a continuing, um, series.
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
David Johnston
>
> Given Brannon Braga's comments about the next coming series, should
>he and the current staff of 'Trek helmers be replaced by new people with
>new ideas? Should the franchise be put to bed for a few years to give it
>some rest?
Since his comments were totally vague, they are not basis for a
judgement.
David Patrick
The way shows are made in the UK is quite different though. The idea of
showing the same programme in the same slot all the year round seems
really weird to us, except for the soaps of course. The idea of mixing
repeats in and around new episodes seems designed to drive viewers away.
In the UK a series is made and everyone goes their seperate ways. It's
only after the show is broadcast that a decision to renew the show is
made. So, in a way, the next season is the next series. Look at Red Dwarf,
there were gaps of several years between the final (dreadful) few series.
The only shows with an American style season-length are the really popular
ones like Casualty (Set in a British ER department, but its run a lot
longer than ER has).
Getting back to Star Trek, does the problem with the show lie not with
Berman and Braga, but with TPTB above them?
David Patrick
Tom Holt
from David Patrick <spsp...@reading.ac.uk> contains these words:
> Getting back to Star Trek, does the problem with the show lie not with
> Berman and Braga, but with TPTB above them?
The problem lies with Berman and Braga. The *blame* lies with the
executives who hired them.
Alison Hopkins
Tom Holt wrote in message <200007161...@zetnet.co.uk>...
And who let Ron Moore go - or pushed him, whatever.
Ali
Friar Chuck
No I think he should be replaced for the following reason:
1. Doesn't understands Trek is about characters and not who can pull
the best techno babble out of the hat every week.
2. That ratings do not equal the spandix content of the character's
costumes.
3. He hasn't figured out that stories sell all of fiction and good
stories is what makes people come back for more.
4. That to have a good trek story, we do not need a TARDIS....
opps.......sorry........ wrong show.
5. That in the 24th century, man will have most of the same failings
as he does today... and has for the past 5000 years..True character
comes from overcoming personal weaknesses, not breeding them out of
the gene pool.
6. That the great strength of original Star Trek was in the stories
that the viewer wondered about ........not wondered at. There is a big
difference in the two.
FC
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 05:20:03 GMT, rgo...@telusplanet.net (David
>Johnston) wrote:
>
>>On 14 Jul 2000 15:48:57 -0500, cha...@wil.net wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Given Brannon Braga's comments about the next coming series, should
>>>he and the current staff of 'Trek helmers be replaced by new people with
>>>new ideas? Should the franchise be put to bed for a few years to give it
>>>some rest?
>>
>>Since his comments were totally vague, they are not basis for a
>>judgement.
>
>
>No I think he should be replaced for the following reason:
>
>1. Doesn't understands Trek is about characters and not who can pull
>the best techno babble out of the hat every week.
>
>2. That ratings do not equal the spandix content of the character's
>costumes.
>
>3. He hasn't figured out that stories sell all of fiction and good
>stories is what makes people come back for more.
>
>4. That to have a good trek story, we do not need a TARDIS....
>opps.......sorry........ wrong show.
>
>5. That in the 24th century, man will have most of the same failings
>as he does today... and has for the past 5000 years..True character
>comes from overcoming personal weaknesses, not breeding them out of
>the gene pool.
Not fair. Roddenberry imposed that straitjacket on Star Trek.
Friar Chuck
Johnston) wrote:
Yes but Braga developed it into an art form.
FC
William December Starr
Friar Chuck <prof...@airmail.net> said:
> No I think he should be replaced for the following reason:
>
> 1. Doesn't understands Trek is about characters and not who
> can pull the best techno babble out of the hat every week.
That's not a hat...
Klyfix
<spsp...@reading.ac.uk> writes:
>
>Getting back to Star Trek, does the problem with the show lie not with
>Berman and Braga, but with TPTB above them?
>
From the bits I've gathered, these folk have supposedly said things indicating
a certain amount of contempt for "Trekkies" and for the notion of continuity
with Old Trek, which has not endeared them to the fans and which
has implied that many of the flaws of Current Trek can be laid on them.
They didn't come into the Franchise as fans of either Trek or of SF,
which while perhaps not essential would have been helpful.
My impression, at least.
recook77
news:20000716173655...@nso-fa.aol.com...
> In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000716100106.12288C-100000@suma3>, David
Patrick
> <spsp...@reading.ac.uk> writes:
>
> >
> >Getting back to Star Trek, does the problem with the show lie not with
> >Berman and Braga, but with TPTB above them?
> >
>
> From the bits I've gathered, these folk have supposedly said things
indicating
> a certain amount of contempt for "Trekkies" and for the notion of
continuity
> with Old Trek, which has not endeared them to the fans and which
> has implied that many of the flaws of Current Trek can be laid on them.
> They didn't come into the Franchise as fans of either Trek or of SF,
> which while perhaps not essential would have been helpful.
I'd say your assessment is right on the money. Contrast B&B's attitude with
that of the DS9 staffers: Wolfe, Moore, Echevarria, and Beimler were *all*
fans of the original series. Braga, on the other hand, simply applied
randomly for an internship position while still in college and just happened
to be assigned to Trek despite the fact that he doesn't care for Trek or SF.
Braga has managed to keep his job at Trek primarily by manipulating the
system and kissing Berman's ass. Berman, as I understand it, sees Braga as
a sort of protege and enjoys hearing about Braga's sleazy antics. Berman
hasn't always been crazy about Braga's writing (supposedly, he kept
demanding rewrite after rewrite for "Equinox II"), but he has a personal
fondness for the guy. In the end, Braga will be Berman's downfall, I think.
--
"God is a very busy god. He may not be there when you want him, but he's
always on time."
Curtis Mayfield
1942-1999
>
cha...@wil.net
> I'd say your assessment is right on the money. Contrast B&B's attitude with
> that of the DS9 staffers: Wolfe, Moore, Echevarria, and Beimler were *all*
> fans of the original series. Braga, on the other hand, simply applied
> randomly for an internship position while still in college and just happened
> to be assigned to Trek despite the fact that he doesn't care for Trek or SF.
>
> Braga has managed to keep his job at Trek primarily by manipulating the
> system and kissing Berman's ass. Berman, as I understand it, sees Braga as
> a sort of protege and enjoys hearing about Braga's sleazy antics. Berman
> hasn't always been crazy about Braga's writing (supposedly, he kept
> demanding rewrite after rewrite for "Equinox II"), but he has a personal
> fondness for the guy. In the end, Braga will be Berman's downfall, I think.
Even if half of that is true, it's all the more reason to clean house.
recook77
news:8ks36q$i4k$1...@lure.pipex.net...
>
> Tom Holt wrote in message <200007161...@zetnet.co.uk>...
> >The message <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000716100106.12288C-100000@suma3>
> > from David Patrick <spsp...@reading.ac.uk> contains these words:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Berman and Braga, but with TPTB above them?
> >
> >
> >executives who hired them.
> >
>
going, and Berman and Braga are aware of this. They're scrambling to keep
their jobs.
I heard a great story: A reporter for an SF magazine was interviewing Berman
and asked an innocent question about the future of the franchise. Berman
snapped back: "Why? Do you want it? You can have it!"
Basically, these guys are tired and burned out, but they're terrified to
leave. They also know how to manipulate the system--hence, Braga's
development deal. Paramount, I think, will soon find out that Braga's
talents are very limited. Although Berman and Braga's bosses aren't too
crazy about the way things are going, they have no idea how to fix the
situation.
>
> And who let Ron Moore go - or pushed him, whatever.
"Pushed him" is correct. A lot of the folks who worked on Trek are now gone
for any number of reasons; Braga has certainly played a role in getting rid
of some of them: Nick Sagan and Lisa Klink were both sacked by him. Moore
was stabbed in the back.
Funny thing is, Moore was hired by Jonathan Frakes to run "Roswell," while
Majel Roddenberry hired Robert Hewitt Wolfe to develop "Andromeda." David
Weddle and Bradley Thompson, I've heard, are also working on a Roddenberry
series. Clearly, these Trek stalwarts have enough faith in the former DS9
staffers to hire them. That says something, doesn't it?
--
"God is a very busy god. He may not be there when you want him, but he's
always on time."
Curtis Mayfield
1942-1999
>
> Ali
>
>
WWS
recook77 wrote:
>
> >
> > And who let Ron Moore go - or pushed him, whatever.
>
> "Pushed him" is correct. A lot of the folks who worked on Trek are now gone
> for any number of reasons; Braga has certainly played a role in getting rid
> of some of them: Nick Sagan and Lisa Klink were both sacked by him. Moore
> was stabbed in the back.
"Then Came the last days of May"
BOC
heh.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
It may be that your sole purpose in life is
simply to serve as a warning to others.
Klyfix
<reco...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>Basically, these guys are tired and burned out, but they're terrified to
>leave. They also know how to manipulate the system--hence, Braga's
>development deal. Paramount, I think, will soon find out that Braga's
>talents are very limited. Although Berman and Braga's bosses aren't too
>crazy about the way things are going, they have no idea how to fix the
>situation.
>
Hmm, can B&B, get someone with experience in TV and SF with a
fondness for Trek to run the next series, make a point of having
folk to pay attention to continuity and reasonable scientific
extrapolations, encourage published SF writers to write for the
series, stuff like that.
Cheryl Deering
> It may be me, but it seems that Hollywood execs are slow to realize when
> someone can't deliver the goods. They'll find out soon enough about Berman
> and Braga.
Fans catch on _far_ faster than execs. when a series or a franchise
starts going downhill. As well, Berman and Braga have had the kind
of luck that currently graces folks like Michael Bay and Stephen
Sommers (and used to do wonders for Devlin/Emmerich--and Joel
Schumacher, to a lesser degree). It generally takes a BATTLEFIELD:
EARTH-type catastrophe to do those guys in.
C.
**
Ian J. Ball
<dee...@primenet.com> wrote:
> recook77 wrote:
>
> > It may be me, but it seems that Hollywood execs are slow to realize when
> > someone can't deliver the goods. They'll find out soon enough about
> > Berman
> > and Braga.
>
> Fans catch on _far_ faster than execs. when a series or a franchise
> starts going downhill. As well, Berman and Braga have had the kind
> of luck that currently graces folks like Michael Bay and Stephen
> Sommers (and used to do wonders for Devlin/Emmerich--and Joel
> Schumacher, to a lesser degree).
Devlin and Emmerlich just put out "The Partiot" which, while not a
"blockbuster", is generally acknowledged as one of the best films of the
summer.
--
Ian J. Ball | "IMO, even if you're not cursed, trying to
TV lover, and | change yourself for the better is not wrong.
Usenet slacker | - Dan Damouth in alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer
ib...@socal.rr.com | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/TV.html
Cheryl Deering
>
> Alison Hopkins <fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:8ks36q$i4k$1...@lure.pipex.net...
> As I understand it, Paramount is unhappy with the direction the franchise is
> going,
*snicker* Sherry Lansing is _not_ one to mess with--there's only so
long huge cash flow is going to make her overlook sorry work and
audience disgust--g!
> and Berman and Braga are aware of this. They're scrambling to keep
> their jobs.
>
> I heard a great story: A reporter for an SF magazine was interviewing Berman
> and asked an innocent question about the future of the franchise. Berman
> snapped back: "Why? Do you want it? You can have it!"
>
> Basically, these guys are tired and burned out, but they're terrified to
> leave. They also know how to manipulate the system--hence, Braga's
> development deal. Paramount, I think, will soon find out that Braga's
> talents are very limited. Although Berman and Braga's bosses aren't too
> crazy about the way things are going, they have no idea how to fix the
> situation.
Fire 'em, put the franchise on ice till you find someone who can
handle it, then proceed. What's hard about that?
> > And who let Ron Moore go - or pushed him, whatever.
>
> "Pushed him" is correct. A lot of the folks who worked on Trek are now gone
> for any number of reasons; Braga has certainly played a role in getting rid
> of some of them: Nick Sagan and Lisa Klink were both sacked by him. Moore
> was stabbed in the back.
>
> Funny thing is, Moore was hired by Jonathan Frakes to run "Roswell," while
> Majel Roddenberry hired Robert Hewitt Wolfe to develop "Andromeda." David
> Weddle and Bradley Thompson, I've heard, are also working on a Roddenberry
> series. Clearly, these Trek stalwarts have enough faith in the former DS9
> staffers to hire them. That says something, doesn't it?
That--and the fate of innumerable X-FILES staffers who have wound up
hired elsewhere--speaks volumes. . .
C.
**
Cheryl Deering
> >As well, Berman and Braga have had the kind
> > of luck that currently graces folks like Michael Bay and Stephen
> > Sommers (and used to do wonders for Devlin/Emmerich--and Joel
> > Schumacher, to a lesser degree).
>
> Devlin and Emmerlich just put out "The Partiot" which, while not a
> "blockbuster", is generally acknowledged as one of the best films of the
> summer.
Hmmm, but they still don't have the carte blanche/"studios will ask
how high when they say jump" power they had after ID4 came out--in
fact, they are still working off the bad juju GODZILLA (and audience
realization that ID4 wasn't all that) put on 'em--g! THE PATRIOT is
a step in the right direction, but. . .
C.
**
o_d...@my-deja.com
well as Voyager. As for Berman being pissed off after all the abuse,
that's natural. Maybe if you had their job instead of just carping
about the way other people do their jobs, you might understand.
Roswell and Andromeda are last tier shows, far lower on the totem pole
than Trek. These Trek stalwarts are happy to hire anybody and would
love to pull away some Trek audience to their ninth rate shows.
In article <8ktqjt$gh6$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>,
"recook77" <reco...@you-spam-you-die.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Alison Hopkins <fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:8ks36q$i4k$1...@lure.pipex.net...
> >
> > Tom Holt wrote in message <200007161...@zetnet.co.uk>...
> > >The message <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000716100106.12288C-100000@suma3>
> > > from David Patrick <spsp...@reading.ac.uk> contains these
words:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> Getting back to Star Trek, does the problem with the show lie
not with
> > >> Berman and Braga, but with TPTB above them?
> > >
> > >
> > >The problem lies with Berman and Braga. The *blame* lies with the
> > >executives who hired them.
> > >
> >
> As I understand it, Paramount is unhappy with the direction the
franchise is
> going, and Berman and Braga are aware of this. They're scrambling to
keep
> their jobs.
>
> I heard a great story: A reporter for an SF magazine was interviewing
Berman
> and asked an innocent question about the future of the franchise.
Berman
> snapped back: "Why? Do you want it? You can have it!"
>
> Basically, these guys are tired and burned out, but they're terrified
to
> leave. They also know how to manipulate the system--hence, Braga's
> development deal. Paramount, I think, will soon find out that Braga's
> talents are very limited. Although Berman and Braga's bosses aren't
too
> crazy about the way things are going, they have no idea how to fix the
> situation.
>
> >
> > And who let Ron Moore go - or pushed him, whatever.
>
> "Pushed him" is correct. A lot of the folks who worked on Trek are
now gone
> for any number of reasons; Braga has certainly played a role in
getting rid
> of some of them: Nick Sagan and Lisa Klink were both sacked by him.
Moore
> was stabbed in the back.
>
>
>
> --Funny thing is, Moore was hired by Jonathan Frakes to run
"Roswell," while
> Majel Roddenberry hired Robert Hewitt Wolfe to develop "Andromeda."
David
> Weddle and Bradley Thompson, I've heard, are also working on a
Roddenberry
> series. Clearly, these Trek stalwarts have enough faith in the
former DS9
> staffers to hire them. That says something, doesn't it?
> "God is a very busy god. He may not be there when you want him, but
he's
> always on time."
>
> Curtis Mayfield
> 1942-1999
>
> >
> > Ali
> >
> >
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
o_d...@my-deja.com
attitude with that of the DS9 staffers: Wolfe, Moore, Echevarria, and
Beimler were *all* fans of the original series."
All claim to be fans of the original series, just as Sorbo these days
is claiming to be a fan of the original series. In fact Wolfe, Moore
and Beimler and their DS9 ilk have done everything possible to
descerate everything it stood for. Odd kind of fandom.
"Braga, on the other hand, simply applied randomly for an internship
position while still in college and just happened to be assigned to
Trek despite the fact that he doesn't care for Trek or SF."
Same old garbage. Braga has written some of Trek's best episodes and
clearly knows SF concepts far better than the Ds9 writers who couldn't
even figure out that no blockade is possible in 3D space.
"Braga has managed to keep his job at Trek primarily by manipulating
the system and kissing Berman's ass. Berman, as I understand it, sees
Braga as a sort of protege and enjoys hearing about Braga's sleazy
antics."
Actually Braga has managed to stabilize Voyager's ratings and improve
the show greatly despite all the scum like you who delight in spreading
nasty rumors about anybody more succesfull than you.
In article <8ktps1$3sp$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
"recook77" <reco...@you-spam-you-die.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Klyfix <kly...@aol.comedy> wrote in message
> news:20000716173655...@nso-fa.aol.com...
> > In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000716100106.12288C-100000@suma3>, David
> Patrick
> > <spsp...@reading.ac.uk> writes:
> >
> > >
> > >Getting back to Star Trek, does the problem with the show lie not
with
> > >Berman and Braga, but with TPTB above them?
> > >
> >
> > From the bits I've gathered, these folk have supposedly said things
> indicating
> > a certain amount of contempt for "Trekkies" and for the notion of
> continuity
> > with Old Trek, which has not endeared them to the fans and which
> > has implied that many of the flaws of Current Trek can be laid on
them.
> > They didn't come into the Franchise as fans of either Trek or of SF,
> > which while perhaps not essential would have been helpful.
>
> I'd say your assessment is right on the money. Contrast B&B's
attitude with
> that of the DS9 staffers: Wolfe, Moore, Echevarria, and Beimler were
*all*
> fans of the original series. Braga, on the other hand, simply applied
> randomly for an internship position while still in college and just
happened
> to be assigned to Trek despite the fact that he doesn't care for Trek
or SF.
>
> Braga has managed to keep his job at Trek primarily by manipulating
the
> system and kissing Berman's ass. Berman, as I understand it, sees
Braga as
> a sort of protege and enjoys hearing about Braga's sleazy antics.
Berman
> hasn't always been crazy about Braga's writing (supposedly, he kept
> demanding rewrite after rewrite for "Equinox II"), but he has a
personal
> fondness for the guy. In the end, Braga will be Berman's downfall, I
think.
>
> --
> "God is a very busy god. He may not be there when you want him, but
he's
> always on time."
>
> Curtis Mayfield
> 1942-1999
>
> >
> > My impression, at least.
> >
> > V. S. Greene : kly...@aol.com : Boston, near Arkham...
> > Eckzylon: http://m1.aol.com/klyfix/eckzylon.html
> > RPG and SF, predictions, philosophy, and other things.
> > "I wear the cheese; it does not wear me. - BtVS, "Restless"
>
>
o_d...@my-deja.com
> Awwwww, be nice, Travers! With Braga dead, who'll be there to give
hummers
> to the Paramount executives?"
Are you volunteering for the job? I thought your specialty was slander
and envy.
In article <8kq8rl$ba5$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
"recook77" <reco...@you-spam-you-die.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Travers Naran <tna...@direct.ca> wrote in message
> news:QHSb5.16180$BS1.4...@brie.direct.ca...
> > <cha...@wil.net> wrote in message
> > news:charawn-1407...@dyn29.pm3.wil.net...
> > >
> > > Given Brannon Braga's comments about the next coming series,
should
> > > he and the current staff of 'Trek helmers be replaced by new
people with
> > > new ideas? Should the franchise be put to bed for a few years to
give it
> > > some rest?
> >
> > Braga's head should be severed from his body, boiled and placed on
a tall
> > spike outside the Melrose gates of Paramount as a warning to the
next 20
> > generations of Hollywood hacks that some long-term contracts come
with too
> > high a cost.
> >
> > After the Narn batsquad are through with his body, you wouldn't find
> enough
> > of it for positive identification.
> >
> >
> Awwwww, be nice, Travers! With Braga dead, who'll be there to give
hummers
> to the Paramount executives?
>
> --
> "God is a very busy god. He may not be there when you want him, but
he's
> always on time."
>
> Curtis Mayfield
> 1942-1999
>
> >
>
>
o_d...@my-deja.com
watched by a tiny amount of people on cable and Andromeda is EFC with
Captain Hercules. They're as much competition for Series V as you are
for Braga.
In article <8kq8hc$7o3$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>,
"recook77" <reco...@you-spam-you-die.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> <cha...@wil.net> wrote in message
> news:charawn-1407...@dyn29.pm3.wil.net...
> >
> > Given Brannon Braga's comments about the next coming series,
should
> > he and the current staff of 'Trek helmers be replaced by new people
with
> > new ideas? Should the franchise be put to bed for a few years to
give it
> > some rest?
> >
> Yes and yes.
>
> If Paramount is really foolish enough to hand Braga a development
deal, then
> said deal should cover non-Trek series ONLY.
>
> My prediction is that series 5 will probably flounder, esp. when and
if it's
> competing with shows like Farscape and the forthcoming Andromeda
series.
>
> It may be me, but it seems that Hollywood execs are slow to realize
when
> someone can't deliver the goods. They'll find out soon enough about
Berman
> and Braga.
>
> --
> "God is a very busy god. He may not be there when you want him, but
he's
> always on time."
>
> Curtis Mayfield
> 1942-1999
>
> >
> > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>
>
Podkayne Fries
>Hmm, can B&B, get someone with experience in TV and SF with a
>fondness for Trek to run the next series, make a point of having
>folk to pay attention to continuity and reasonable scientific
>extrapolations, encourage published SF writers to write for the
>series, stuff like that.
Heck, they could hire J. Random Fanboy as Technical Consultant, pay him
a decent salary and let him plot the script. At least JRF would be able
to spot the plot holes and fix the continuity problems.
--
Regards, Podkayne Fries
"Nothing looks as good on a girl as Navy."
- Kitty, DHARMA AND GREG
WWS
o_d...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Paramount is unhappy with the ratings, a problem that plauged DS9 as
> well as Voyager. As for Berman being pissed off after all the abuse,
> that's natural. Maybe if you had their job instead of just carping
> about the way other people do their jobs, you might understand.
Understand what? That he's done a lousy job? That's not hard to
understand. Everyone on these ng's have been saying that for years,
and now even Paramount has agreed. If they've figured it out, you
know it's pretty friggin' obvious.
>
> Roswell and Andromeda are last tier shows, far lower on the totem pole
> than Trek. These Trek stalwarts are happy to hire anybody and would
> love to pull away some Trek audience to their ninth rate shows.
What Trek Audience??? That's Paramounts problem, they've run the
show into the ground. And Paramount, with Braga as Case In Point,
has been the company "happy to hire anybody" - even someone who
admittedly dislikes science fiction and would rather be doing
something fulfilling, like pRoN. Braga's in television production
for one reason only - he gets to bang some hot chicks on a regular
basis, and he never really has to put any effort into anything.
Like the song goes, "Money for nothin', and your chicks for free!"
--
WWS
o_d...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> "> >
> > Awwwww, be nice, Travers! With Braga dead, who'll be there to give
> hummers to the Paramount executives?"
>
> Are you volunteering for the job? I thought your specialty was slander
> and envy.
>
Nawww, that job belongs to some guy named Harve Jessup.
Ian J. Ball
<dee...@primenet.com> wrote:
> Ian J. Ball wrote:
> >
> > Devlin and Emmerlich just put out "The Partiot" which, while not a
> > "blockbuster", is generally acknowledged as one of the best films of the
> > summer.
>
> Hmmm, but they still don't have the carte blanche/"studios will ask
> how high when they say jump" power they had after ID4 came out--in
> fact, they are still working off the bad juju GODZILLA (and audience
> realization that ID4 wasn't all that) put on 'em--g! THE PATRIOT is
> a step in the right direction, but. . .
It's popular (and I'm sure especially popular here) to bash "ID4", but I
don't get it. On what "ID4" was shooting for, which was a souped-up,
andreniline-pumped, "popcorner" "ride", it achieved all that it set out to
do. What were people expecting from this?! "Hamlet"?!
--
Ian J. Ball | "Oh my God! You're kidnapping me! No! Wait!
TV lover, and | You're abducting me!" - "Roswell's" Maria
usenet slacker | (Majandra Delfino) to Michael (Brendan Fehr)
ib...@socal.rr.com | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/TV.html
David Patrick
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Ian J. Ball wrote:
> In article <39728D9F...@primenet.com>, Cheryl Deering
> <dee...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> It's popular (and I'm sure especially popular here) to bash "ID4", but I
> don't get it. On what "ID4" was shooting for, which was a souped-up,
> andreniline-pumped, "popcorner" "ride", it achieved all that it set out to
> do. What were people expecting from this?! "Hamlet"?!
Well, of course not. But the film really dragged for me. After the initial
alien attack the film got really boring, and the quality of the special
effects looked quite ropey at times as well ( I can see how most of the
money went into the set-pieces, like the White House being destroyed).
The plot was moronic, but I wouldn't have cared if the rest of the film
could cover for it. It was dull and only Will Smith brought any life to
it.
Look at Armageddon. Really, really dumb plot (seemingly designed to
violate all known laws of physics) but a fun 'ride' of a film.
The BBC made a one-off radio play to tie in with Independance Day. God
knows why, but it was quite entertaining as the RAF went up against the
aliens and it was also funnier. One point has Patrick Moore (old
astronomer who has been presenting the same programme on BBC 1 for about
forty years (if not longer)) having a straight-up fist fight with an alien
while one of the pilots comments 'Now there's something you don't see
every day'.
David Patrick
James Ellis
>
(resupplying attribution;) recook77 wrote:
> "> >
> > Awwwww, be nice, Travers! With Braga dead, who'll be there to give
> > hummers to the Paramount executives?"
>
> Are you volunteering for the job? I thought your specialty was slander
> and envy.
Aw, how sweet: recook's got herself her very own crazed net-stalker!
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bozo the Proctologist
WWS doth write thus:
>o_d...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> Paramount is unhappy with the ratings, a problem that plauged DS9 as
>> well as Voyager.
But the problemis much worse for Vger. Braga's "I don't like sci fi"
approach has been effective in driving away legions of Trekkies, but it
*hasn't* brought in people who also don't like sci fi to watch what is,
in fact, a (bad) sci fi show.
>>As for Berman being pissed off after all the abuse,
>> that's natural. Maybe if you had their job instead of just carping
>> about the way other people do their jobs, you might understand.
>
>Understand what? That he's done a lousy job? That's not hard to
>understand. Everyone on these ng's have been saying that for years,
>and now even Paramount has agreed. If they've figured it out, you
>know it's pretty friggin' obvious.
Amen. If Berman and Braga are so tired of the complaints, the solution
is frigging obvious: produce Trek shows that *don't* suck. As much as
they're being overpaid, I for one feel no need to tippy toe around their
fragile artistic feelings.
>> Roswell and Andromeda are last tier shows, far lower on the totem pole
>> than Trek. These Trek stalwarts are happy to hire anybody and would
>> love to pull away some Trek audience to their ninth rate shows.
Lower on *what* totem pole?? Certainly not the ratings. And in the TV
industry, they're no doubt aiming for a much larger group than the
modern-day Trek audience.
>What Trek Audience??? That's Paramounts problem, they've run the
>show into the ground.
And having Berman and Braga doing their next Trek isn't helping: Quite a
few Vger viewers aren't even going to both with NextTrek- and certainly
nobody who's already been turned off by Vger is going to bother.
Trek needs new writers and producers- either now, or after B & B have
financially ruined the franchise and *force* Paramount to shut it down
for a decade or two.
He-Who-Isn't-Holding-Out-For-A-Logical-Solution
Captain, a Klingon does NOT drink herbal tea!
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
MuseZack
>o_d...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>
>(resupplying attribution;) recook77 wrote:
>
>> "> >
>> > Awwwww, be nice, Travers! With Braga dead, who'll be there
to give
>> > hummers to the Paramount executives?"
>>
>> Are you volunteering for the job? I thought your specialty was
slander
>> and envy.
>
> Aw, how sweet: recook's got herself her very own crazed
net-stalker!
>
> Biff
>
Robin's exactly quaking. After absorbing some genuine punishment
from experts like Gharlane and the late Cronan Thompson, some
troll who hangs out in the bulletin boards to beat up on Trekkies
and gets chased off of Usenet each time he pops up his ignorant
head isn't going to phase her much.
Where is Gharlane, anyway? I imagine this thread would cause him
a certain amount of amusement. Could I summon him if I could
only remember that chant from "And the Children Shall Lead?"
---
---
-
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
WWS
MuseZack wrote:
>
> James Ellis <ell...@cadvision.com> wrote:
> >
> > Aw, how sweet: recook's got herself her very own crazed
> net-stalker!
> >
> > Biff
> >
> Does this mean she's arrived, then? Somehow, I don't think
> Robin's exactly quaking. After absorbing some genuine punishment
> from experts like Gharlane and the late Cronan Thompson, some
> troll who hangs out in the bulletin boards to beat up on Trekkies
> and gets chased off of Usenet each time he pops up his ignorant
> head isn't going to phase her much.
>
> Where is Gharlane, anyway? I imagine this thread would cause him
> a certain amount of amusement. Could I summon him if I could
> only remember that chant from "And the Children Shall Lead?"
"FRIENDLY ANGEL COME TO ME........"
Except this would have to be "FLOATING BRAIN..."
--
_________________________________________________WWS_____________
Although what is there to debate here? Look at that subject
line, talk about a rhetorical question!!!
Klyfix
>
>Actually Braga has managed to stabilize Voyager's ratings and improve
>the show greatly despite all the scum like you who delight in spreading
>nasty rumors about anybody more succesfull than you.
>
>
While I shall grant that I was noting second hand materials (like a
quote on one site from Mr. Braga stating his contempt for Trek
fans and the notion of continuity) I question the notion that that makes
folk "scum."
In what way has Braga improved ST:V? I shall grant that Seven of Nine
is a superior character to Kes, who was boring. I shall also grant that
getting away from the Kazons, one of the more pathetic enemy races
in SFTV ever, was a good thing. Are those his doing?
While I shall grant that a blockade in 3D space has problems (I'm assuming that
you're not referring to the blockade of the Wormhole; the problem with that
was not the topography but the silly self-replicating mines) are they more of
a howler than the notion that deuterium is so rare that Voyager has to
search desperate for it, or that there could be a big honkin' Dark Zone thing
where the stars don't shine but that has nothing actually blocking the
starlight?
V. S. Greene : kly...@aol.com : Boston, near Arkham...
Eckzylon: http://m1.aol.com/klyfix/eckzylon.html
RPG and SF, predictions, philosophy, and other things.
"I wear the cheese; it does not wear me. - BtVS, "Restless"
Eric D. Berge
<iball***death-to-SPAM***@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>In article <39728A68...@primenet.com>, Cheryl Deering
><dee...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>> recook77 wrote:
>>
>> > It may be me, but it seems that Hollywood execs are slow to realize when
>> > someone can't deliver the goods. They'll find out soon enough about
>> > Berman
>> > and Braga.
>>
>> Fans catch on _far_ faster than execs. when a series or a franchise
>> starts going downhill. As well, Berman and Braga have had the kind
>> of luck that currently graces folks like Michael Bay and Stephen
>> Sommers (and used to do wonders for Devlin/Emmerich--and Joel
>> Schumacher, to a lesser degree).
>
>Devlin and Emmerlich just put out "The Partiot" which, while not a
>"blockbuster", is generally acknowledged as one of the best films of the
>summer.
Acknowledged by who? I thought it was a piece of jingoistic crap.
--
Eric D. Berge
------------------------------------------------------------------
Clay lies still, but blood's a rover
Breath's a ware that will not keep
Up, lad! When the journey's over
There'll be time enough to sleep.
- A.E.Housman, "Reveille"
------------------------------------------------------------------
cha...@wil.net
> Funny thing is, Moore was hired by Jonathan Frakes to run "Roswell," while
> Majel Roddenberry hired Robert Hewitt Wolfe to develop "Andromeda." David
> Weddle and Bradley Thompson, I've heard, are also working on a Roddenberry
> series. Clearly, these Trek stalwarts have enough faith in the former DS9
> staffers to hire them. That says something, doesn't it?
>
I should say so. I tried to get Ron Moore on board as an Executive
Producer for my anthology project as soon as I heard GvsE had been
cancelled, but he'd already been snagged by Roswell.
Dana Windsor
TWC Productions
www.webnow.com/thiswaycomes
o_d...@my-deja.com
> understand. Everyone on these ng's have been saying that for years,
> and now even Paramount has agreed. If they've figured it out, you
> know it's pretty friggin' obvious."
Fanboys think everyone has always been doing a lousy job all the time
whether it's Star Trek or the Simpsons. They hate any producer who
doesn't kiss up to them. Just because fanboys need something to bitch
about doesn't mean the show is about. As for Paramount, use your
brains. If Paramount thought Braga was doing a bad job, he'd be gone.
Hollywood isn't a charity.
"> What Trek Audience??? That's Paramounts problem, they've run the
> show into the ground. And Paramount, with Braga as Case In Point,
> has been the company "happy to hire anybody" - even someone who
> admittedly dislikes science fiction and would rather be doing
> something fulfilling, like pRoN."
Actually Braga obviously knows SF far better than Behr who actually did
hate SF and would rather be doing comedy and camp or his current show
about a Hawai mobster PI. Braga has written some of Trek's best episode
and stabilized Voyager's ratings and improved the show. That's why he's
on board.
" Braga's in television production
> for one reason only - he gets to bang some hot chicks on a regular
> basis, and he never really has to put any effort into anything.
> Like the song goes, "Money for nothin', and your chicks for free!"
Two words. Grow up!
>
> --
>
> _________________________________________________WWS_____________
>
> It may be that your sole purpose in life is
> simply to serve as a warning to others.
>
o_d...@my-deja.com
> quote on one site from Mr. Braga stating his contempt for Trek
> fans and the notion of continuity) I question the notion that that
makes
> folk "scum."
If I wasn't replying to you, I probably wasn't reffering to you.
"> In what way has Braga improved ST:V? I shall grant that Seven of Nine
> is a superior character to Kes, who was boring. I shall also grant
that
> getting away from the Kazons, one of the more pathetic enemy races
> in SFTV ever, was a good thing. Are those his doing?"
Voyager's ratings have stabilized, the general quality of the stories
have improved and the average episode today is more original and better
written than a few years ago. We've seen the development of a different
kind of Voyager style and risk taking episodes like Living Witness,
Course Oblivion and Prodigal Son.
">> While I shall grant that a blockade in 3D space has problems (I'm
assuming that > you're not referring to the blockade of the Wormhole;
the problem with that
> was not the topography but the silly self-replicating mines) are they
more of
> a howler than the notion that deuterium is so rare that Voyager has
to
> search desperate for it, or that there could be a big honkin' Dark
Zone thing
> where the stars don't shine but that has nothing actually blocking the
> starlight?"
SF has a history of speculating about alternate physics and like those
superhuman alien beings with superhuman alien tech there's no real way
to disprove them. On the other hand a stationary blockade in space
doesn't take any Scientific knowledge to disprove, just common sense.
o_d...@my-deja.com
time...wonder what the history is there...
In article <397333...@cadvision.com>,
James Ellis <ell...@cadvision.com> wrote:
> o_d...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
>
> (resupplying attribution;) recook77 wrote:
>
> > "> >
> > > Awwwww, be nice, Travers! With Braga dead, who'll be there to
give
> > > hummers to the Paramount executives?"
> >
> > Are you volunteering for the job? I thought your specialty was
slander
> > and envy.
>
> Aw, how sweet: recook's got herself her very own crazed net-
stalker!
>
> Biff
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
> [...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
o_d...@my-deja.com
dimwitted enough to think that anyone cares about a few tried
electronic insults from strangers hundreds of miles away but
themselves.
In article <309b6628...@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com>,
MuseZack <astyanax9...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> James Ellis <ell...@cadvision.com> wrote:
> >o_d...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >
> >(resupplying attribution;) recook77 wrote:
> >
> >> "> >
> >> > Awwwww, be nice, Travers! With Braga dead, who'll be there
> to give
> >> > hummers to the Paramount executives?"
> >>
> >> Are you volunteering for the job? I thought your specialty was
> slander
> >> and envy.
> >
> > Aw, how sweet: recook's got herself her very own crazed
> net-stalker!
> >
> > Biff
> >
> Does this mean she's arrived, then? Somehow, I don't think
> Robin's exactly quaking. After absorbing some genuine punishment
> from experts like Gharlane and the late Cronan Thompson, some
> troll who hangs out in the bulletin boards to beat up on Trekkies
> and gets chased off of Usenet each time he pops up his ignorant
> head isn't going to phase her much.
>
> Where is Gharlane, anyway? I imagine this thread would cause him
> a certain amount of amusement. Could I summon him if I could
> only remember that chant from "And the Children Shall Lead?"
>
> ---
> ---
> -
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com
>
>
Masked Man
|Braga has written some of Trek's best episode
|and stabilized Voyager's ratings and improved the show.
Masked Man------>No, maybe, and he-double-hockeystick-no!
--
Who was that masked man?
Cheryl Deering
>
> On 17 Jul 2000 04:11:20 GMT, kly...@aol.comedy (Klyfix) wrote:
>
> >Hmm, can B&B, get someone with experience in TV and SF with a
> >fondness for Trek to run the next series, make a point of having
> >folk to pay attention to continuity and reasonable scientific
> >extrapolations, encourage published SF writers to write for the
> >series, stuff like that.
>
> Heck, they could hire J. Random Fanboy as Technical Consultant, pay him
> a decent salary and let him plot the script. At least JRF would be able
> to spot the plot holes and fix the continuity problems.
Yeah, boy. One of the major reasons I loved GALAXY QUEST--they were
far smarter on the draw about this kind of advantage than Paramount
has been in eons.
C.
**
recook77
> Actually far as I can figure out Robin has been stalking Braga for some
> time...wonder what the history is there...
>
>
>
Do you even know what it means to stalk someone? If not, please look it up
in the dictionary. My copy of Merriam-Webster (an invaluable resource)
defines "stalk" as "to pursue quarry or prey stealthily."
Discussing Braga in a newsgroup does not consitute stalking.
I should add that you have picked the wrong newsgroup to waltz in and make
such ridiculous remarks. You have managed to display your lack of
knowledge, limited vocabulary, and general stupidity.
Oh, and Odie? One last word. . .PLONK.
--
"God is a very busy god. He may not be there when you want him, but he's
always on time."
Curtis Mayfield
1942-1999
>
>
> In article <397333...@cadvision.com>,
> James Ellis <ell...@cadvision.com> wrote:
> > o_d...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> >
> > (resupplying attribution;) recook77 wrote:
> >
> > > "> >
> > > > Awwwww, be nice, Travers! With Braga dead, who'll be there to
> give
> > > > hummers to the Paramount executives?"
> > >
> > > Are you volunteering for the job? I thought your specialty was
> slander
> > > and envy.
> >
> > Aw, how sweet: recook's got herself her very own crazed net-
> stalker!
> >
> > Biff
> >
> > --
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > "Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
> > [...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
James Ellis
>
>
> ">> While I shall grant that a blockade in 3D space has problems (I'm
> assuming that you're not referring to the blockade of the Wormhole;
> the problem with that was not the topography but the silly
> self-replicating mines) are they more of a howler than the notion that
> deuterium is so rare that Voyager has to search desperate for it, or
> that there could be a big honkin' Dark Zone thing where the stars
> don't shine but that has nothing actually blocking the starlight?"
>
> SF has a history of speculating about alternate physics and like those
> superhuman alien beings with superhuman alien tech there's no real way
> to disprove them.
<Chortle!>
You are a bit lacking in the rational (and scientific) thought
department, aren't you o_deus?
A hell of a lot of V'ger's "science" is complete and utter shite.
Provably so.
Gharlane of Eddore
MuseZack wrote:
>
> Where is Gharlane, anyway? I imagine this thread would cause him
> a certain amount of amusement. Could I summon him if I could
> only remember that chant from "And the Children Shall Lead?"
>
In <39737EEE...@tyler.net> WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> writes:
>
>
> "FRIENDLY ANGEL COME TO ME........"
>
> Except this would have to be "FLOATING BRAIN..."
>
Not even close. For one thing, trying to call me the way you
call a lawyer... *snicker*
try something along the lines of:
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn. Ia! Ia!"
WWS
Who can forget when Braga turned Janeway into a Newt?
Gharlane of Eddore
>
> Funny thing is, Moore was hired by Jonathan Frakes to run "Roswell,"
> while Majel Roddenberry hired Robert Hewitt Wolfe to develop "Andromeda."
> David Weddle and Bradley Thompson, I've heard, are also working on a
> Roddenberry series. Clearly, these Trek stalwarts have enough faith
> in the former DS9 staffers to hire them.
> That says something, doesn't it?
>
Only that they've displayed a marginal degree of production competence,
and tremendous stress stability, in that none of them ever Went Postal
in the TrekkieCrud production offices, starting with Berman and Braga.
In <charawn-1707...@dyn17.pm3.wil.net> cha...@wil.net writes:
>
> I should say so. I tried to get Ron Moore on board as an Executive
> Producer for my anthology project as soon as I heard GvsE had been
> cancelled, but he'd already been snagged by Roswell.
>
Probably easier to attract someone's attention if your series had
ever even shot a pilot, or had anything besides a lot of hot air
and hype to its credit.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if you ever actually came up with
a good series and got it on the air; but you've been tooting about
your Wonderful Special Series on the "News" topics for literally
YEARS now, and for the vast majority of that time the only thing
you've had to offer is the purportedly interesting point that you
intended to use Poe's great-grand-nephew for Introduction Face.
Moore has a three-digit I.Q. Even if you'd gotten hold of him
prior to any commitment to the Kiddie SkiFfy Soap, odds are vastly
in favor of him having an attack of good sense....
WWS
o_d...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Like a religious ritual, it's always nice to see that some people are
> dimwitted enough to think that anyone cares about a few tried
> electronic insults from strangers hundreds of miles away but
> themselves.
So what you're saying is that we should just ignore you. Don't
flatter yourself, we already do.
(it's just that the post of troll-du-jour was vacant for a
moment, and you stuck your head in at the appropriate time)
Mike Henley
>on board.
I believe the last truly good episode that Braga wrote himself was TNG's "Frame
of Mind", seven years ago.
WRabkin
>long huge cash flow is going to make her overlook sorry work and
>audience disgust--g!
No, as long as the Star Trek franchise continues to generate huge cash flow,
Sherry Lansing isn't going to mess with it -- even if she does hear that you
and your friends don't like the show...
WWS
Problem is, they can see the day the wells going to run dry, and it's
looking like it's less than a year from now. Even sooner, if the
reports about UPN's possible demise have any validity. (Not that
I'm saying they do, it's just that those stories are floating around
these days)
That's the point of the original post - it's not too original a
thought to realize that if you wait until the cash starts to run
out, you're already too late to change direction. Of course, one
possible plan is to run full speed ahead until they hit the wall,
and then do a full shutdown. It's not very satisfying to the fans,
but from a financial point of view it's got a lot of advantages.
No development risk, just milk the rubes for all they've got as
long as you can. Then walk away, and keep your residuals as gravy.
Jerry Brown
>Who can forget when Braga turned Janeway into a Newt?
She got better.
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
MuseZack
>So what you're saying is that we should just ignore you. Don't
>flatter yourself, we already do.
>
>(it's just that the post of troll-du-jour was vacant for a
>moment, and you stuck your head in at the appropriate time)
>
Well, that, and it's just plain amusing to see people who spend
half their lives on the Net picking fights with teenage Trekkies
resorting to calling other people "fanboys." Hypocricy is so
lost on some people.
---
---
---
Geoduck
<je...@jwbrown.demon.co.uk.RemoveThisBitToReply> wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:12:42 -0500, WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
>
>>Who can forget when Braga turned Janeway into a Newt?
>
>She got better.
Only physically.
--
Geoduck
geo...@usa.net
http://www.olywa.net/cook
recook77
MuseZack <astyanax9...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:12dbea51...@usw-ex0104-025.remarq.com...
> WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
>
> >So what you're saying is that we should just ignore you. Don't
> >flatter yourself, we already do.
> >
> >(it's just that the post of troll-du-jour was vacant for a
> >moment, and you stuck your head in at the appropriate time)
> >
> Well, that, and it's just plain amusing to see people who spend
> half their lives on the Net picking fights with teenage Trekkies
> resorting to calling other people "fanboys." Hypocricy is so
> lost on some people.
>
word "stalk."
--
"God is a very busy god. He may not be there when you want him, but he's
always on time."
Curtis Mayfield
1942-1999
>
vi...@shellyeah.org
: So is basic vocabulary skills. Some people don't know the meaning of the
: word "stalk."
"fee fie fo fum"
o_d...@my-deja.com
o_d...@my-deja.com
to work on a show whose ass Voyager kicked in the ratings and which
wasn't cancelled only as part and parcel of the Buffy negotiations and
will be dead soon too. Now why is it that all these brillant geniuses
end up on second rate shows that get cancelled as soon as they arrive.
Maybe it's because they're brillant and misunderstood geniuses
persecuted by a cruel and heartless world, or maybe they just suck.
Occam's Razor seems to fall on the Suck side of the equation.
In article <charawn-1707...@dyn17.pm3.wil.net>,
cha...@wil.net wrote:
>
> > Funny thing is, Moore was hired by Jonathan Frakes to run
"Roswell," while
> > Majel Roddenberry hired Robert Hewitt Wolfe to develop
"Andromeda." David
> > Weddle and Bradley Thompson, I've heard, are also working on a
Roddenberry
> > series. Clearly, these Trek stalwarts have enough faith in the
former DS9
> > staffers to hire them. That says something, doesn't it?
> >
>
> I should say so. I tried to get Ron Moore on board as an Executive
> Producer for my anthology project as soon as I heard GvsE had been
> cancelled, but he'd already been snagged by Roswell.
>
> Dana Windsor
> TWC Productions
> www.webnow.com/thiswaycomes
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>
o_d...@my-deja.com
better or worse than the Ansible in Left Hand of Darkness, Babylon 5's
Souls or TOS's claim that human history was replicated on other worlds
twice. Fact is SF consists of some basic physics gotten right and a
whole lot of fantastic ideas behind it. Fanboys pick and choose which
ones they want to whine about.
In article <39746F...@cadvision.com>,
o_d...@my-deja.com
somehow proud of that. Again sad.
In article <39749BAB...@tyler.net>,
WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
>
>
> o_d...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Like a religious ritual, it's always nice to see that some people
are
> > dimwitted enough to think that anyone cares about a few tried
> > electronic insults from strangers hundreds of miles away but
> > themselves.
>
> So what you're saying is that we should just ignore you. Don't
> flatter yourself, we already do.
>
> (it's just that the post of troll-du-jour was vacant for a
> moment, and you stuck your head in at the appropriate time)
>
> --
>
> _________________________________________________WWS_____________
>
> It may be that your sole purpose in life is
> simply to serve as a warning to others.
>
o_d...@my-deja.com
When you spend all your free time, when the only thing you seem
interested in, when your sole obsession is a minor TV writer and
producer whom you feel a bizarre need to post false rumors about and
convince the world of his evil...than you are a stalker. The reality is
you'd love Braga's job...hell you'd love to be a PA if nothing else.
But you're not and so you have to make up for it by stalking with and
posting constant attacks against him. This helps make you feel less
worthless by making him seem worthless
In article <8l2o1c$9d9$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
"recook77" <reco...@you-spam-you-die.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> MuseZack <astyanax9...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:12dbea51...@usw-ex0104-025.remarq.com...
> > WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
> >
> > >So what you're saying is that we should just ignore you. Don't
> > >flatter yourself, we already do.
> > >
> > >(it's just that the post of troll-du-jour was vacant for a
> > >moment, and you stuck your head in at the appropriate time)
> > >
> > Well, that, and it's just plain amusing to see people who spend
> > half their lives on the Net picking fights with teenage Trekkies
> > resorting to calling other people "fanboys." Hypocricy is so
> > lost on some people.
> >
> So is basic vocabulary skills. Some people don't know the meaning of
the
> word "stalk."
>
> --
> "God is a very busy god. He may not be there when you want him, but
he's
> always on time."
>
> Curtis Mayfield
> 1942-1999
>
> >
> > ---
> > ---
> > ---
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> > Up to 100 minutes free!
> > http://www.keen.com
> >
>
>
o_d...@my-deja.com
You know for all that the people who rant about how much they can do
the job better than the proffesionals rant, they oddly enough all seem
to hang on to their day jobs.
Why not just put up or shut up for once...
In article <39731348...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
fr...@fairfieldi.com wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2000 04:11:20 GMT, kly...@aol.comedy (Klyfix) wrote:
>
> >Hmm, can B&B, get someone with experience in TV and SF with a
> >fondness for Trek to run the next series, make a point of having
> >folk to pay attention to continuity and reasonable scientific
> >extrapolations, encourage published SF writers to write for the
> >series, stuff like that.
>
> Heck, they could hire J. Random Fanboy as Technical Consultant, pay
him
> a decent salary and let him plot the script. At least JRF would be
able
> to spot the plot holes and fix the continuity problems.
>
> --
> Regards, Podkayne Fries
>
> "Nothing looks as good on a girl as Navy."
> - Kitty, DHARMA AND GREG
o_d...@my-deja.com
stalker certainly wasn't. Obsession with a celebrity in a very public
way are common hallmarks of the matter. When you create and obsessively
spread false rumors about a celebrity, claim personal knowledge about
said celebrity, spend most of your time obsessed with him and obsessed
with either building up or tearing him down...you're a stalker with a
problem. You can either admit to that problem and get help or it will
just get worse.
In article <8l1c9o$il6$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
"recook77" <reco...@you-spam-you-die.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> <o_d...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8l0jcu$t7j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Actually far as I can figure out Robin has been stalking Braga for
some
> > time...wonder what the history is there...
> >
> >
> >
> *snicker*
>
> Do you even know what it means to stalk someone? If not, please look
it up
> in the dictionary. My copy of Merriam-Webster (an invaluable
resource)
> defines "stalk" as "to pursue quarry or prey stealthily."
>
> Discussing Braga in a newsgroup does not consitute stalking.
>
> I should add that you have picked the wrong newsgroup to waltz in and
make
> such ridiculous remarks. You have managed to display your lack of
> knowledge, limited vocabulary, and general stupidity.
>
> Oh, and Odie? One last word. . .PLONK.
>
> --
> "God is a very busy god. He may not be there when you want him, but
he's
> always on time."
>
> Curtis Mayfield
> 1942-1999
>
> >
> >
> > In article <397333...@cadvision.com>,
> > James Ellis <ell...@cadvision.com> wrote:
> > > o_d...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > (resupplying attribution;) recook77 wrote:
> > >
> > > > "> >
> > > > > Awwwww, be nice, Travers! With Braga dead, who'll be there to
> > give
> > > > > hummers to the Paramount executives?"
> > > >
> > > > Are you volunteering for the job? I thought your specialty was
> > slander
> > > > and envy.
> > >
> > > Aw, how sweet: recook's got herself her very own crazed net-
> > stalker!
> > >
> > > Biff
> > >
> > > --
> > >
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > "Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
> > > [...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
> > >
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> >
> >
David Patrick
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 o_d...@my-deja.com wrote:
> And you're ignorant of Science Fiction. Is Voyager's science really any
> better or worse than the Ansible in Left Hand of Darkness, Babylon 5's
> Souls or TOS's claim that human history was replicated on other worlds
> twice. Fact is SF consists of some basic physics gotten right and a
> whole lot of fantastic ideas behind it. Fanboys pick and choose which
> ones they want to whine about.
No, there is a vast difference between having a device that while beyond
any known law of physics works in a consistant manner in the series and a
show that produces a particle at the end of each show to get them out of
a hole.
"Captain, a modulated flimflam beam may just destabalize their tractor
beam long enough for us to get free."
David Patrick
WWS
o_d...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> When you spend all your free time, when the only thing you seem
> interested in, when your sole obsession is a minor TV writer and
> producer whom you feel a bizarre need to post false rumors about and
> convince the world of his evil...than you are a stalker. The reality is
> you'd love Braga's job...hell you'd love to be a PA if nothing else.
> But you're not and so you have to make up for it by stalking with and
> posting constant attacks against him. This helps make you feel less
> worthless by making him seem worthless
"When you spend all your free time"..... Oh, this is rich, coming from
a failed writer who's highest achievement in life is finally being
allowed to write reviews for what is probably the saddest collection
of fanboys on the web, TrekWeb. And who got that "plum" only because
every other person who actually had talent grew so disgusted with
the venue and the subject that they quit and refused to have anything
to do with it anymore.
Krutzler held his nose and "settled" for you, Odious. You're one
of the measures of how far the franchise has fallen.
--
_________________________________________________WWS_____________
Better stay there, where you're safe.
Mike Henley
>to work on a show whose ass Voyager kicked in the ratings and which
>wasn't cancelled only as part and parcel of the Buffy negotiations and
>will be dead soon too. Now why is it that all these brillant geniuses
>end up on second rate shows that get cancelled as soon as they arrive.
>Maybe it's because they're brillant and misunderstood geniuses
>persecuted by a cruel and heartless world, or maybe they just suck.
>Occam's Razor seems to fall on the Suck side of the equation.
Didn't you know that Occam's Razor, and logic in general, do not apply to the
world of TV ratings? It's about ratings, not actual quality of the shows. Your
post proves nothing. More often than not, good shows die because of poor
scheduling, poor publicity, etc. Saying all shows fail because their writing
sucks is a gross generalization.
Are you actually trying to say that Braga is a more talented writer than, say,
Moore? (I hold Behr personally responsible for the Ferengi shows that marred
otherwise phenomenal seasons of DS9, so forget about him.) Moore was a fine
writer, and the staff of Voyager displayed their incompetence and tastelessness
by letting him go. What a waste.
Mike Henley
Notice how I said "himself", as in "by himself." "Living Witness" was written
by Braga, Bryan Fuller, and Joe Menosky, based on a story by Braga. In my
opinion, when a episode has three writers, it's impossible to pin the failure
and or success of that episode on any one writer. So, in my opinion, the fact
that he's credited as co-writing "Living Witness" proves nothing of his talent.
And what about "Deadlock"?
WWS
o_d...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> As demonstrated by the generally high quality of fanfic...
>
> You know for all that the people who rant about how much they can do
> the job better than the proffesionals rant, they oddly enough all seem
> to hang on to their day jobs.
>
> Why not just put up or shut up for once...
Lucky for you you haven't got a day job, isn't it?
--
_________________________________________________WWS_____________
Cheryl Deering
>
> WRabkin wrote:
> >I wrote:
> >
> > >*snicker* Sherry Lansing is _not_ one to mess with--there's only so
> > >long huge cash flow is going to make her overlook sorry work and
> > >audience disgust--g!
> >
> > No, as long as the Star Trek franchise continues to generate huge cash flow,
> > Sherry Lansing isn't going to mess with it -- even if she does hear that you
> > and your friends don't like the show...
That cash flow (or drying up thereof) is the problem: people are not
buying Trek merchandise hand-over-fist like they used to and sales
have been declining for several years now. It doesn't take an act of
genius (or insider snobbery--g!) to realize that if your shows are
not drawing the interest they used to because of poor
quality/overexposure, the merchandising isn't going to have the
automatic advertising/support/appeal it did, either. You can ignore
poor show quality and fan dislike for a long time, but eventually
that stuff catches up with you.
> Problem is, they can see the day the wells going to run dry, and it's
> looking like it's less than a year from now. Even sooner, if the
> reports about UPN's possible demise have any validity. (Not that
> I'm saying they do, it's just that those stories are floating around
> these days)
>
> That's the point of the original post - it's not too original a
> thought to realize that if you wait until the cash starts to run
> out, you're already too late to change direction. Of course, one
> possible plan is to run full speed ahead until they hit the wall,
> and then do a full shutdown. It's not very satisfying to the fans,
> but from a financial point of view it's got a lot of advantages.
> No development risk, just milk the rubes for all they've got as
> long as you can. Then walk away, and keep your residuals as gravy.
It would give them time to revitalize the franchise, as well. New
franchises are harder than ever to come up with because of
expense/lack of creativity to keep them going, so Paramount is
probably going to come up with some 50/50 type solution like the
above.
C.
**
o_d...@my-deja.com
by the fact that I make arguments and you spew childish insults. Good
luck shaking that tin cup and don't let the fleas bite.
In article <3975C0EA...@tyler.net>,
o_d...@my-deja.com
amazingly great to assume that they should get all the credit. As a
producer Braga tends to be part of writing teams rather than penning
individual episodes. That's the way things work.
In article <20000719104132...@ng-cn1.aol.com>,
o_d...@my-deja.com
repeatedly that doesn't say anything good about you. And despite fan
opinion GVSE, Roswell let alone Behr's Hawai Mob show concept were not
great works of art. Now and Again might have been a good show some day
for those who like that kind of thing.
Braga and Moore have different areas of talent. Braga is better with
extrapolation, wierd physics and SF concepts and the more traditional
Science Fiction stuff while Moore handles arcs, drama and dialouge
better. It's not equivalent so you really can't compare one against the
other. Moore's talents worked better on Ds9. His one Voyager episode
was stunningly mediocre and made no sense plotwise. I don't see his
departure as a particularly great loss myself.
In article <20000719103431...@ng-cn1.aol.com>,
o_d...@my-deja.com
about as consistant as the tech of any show that ran as long as it did.
This is SF after all, not popular mechanics. Plot is more important
than allegiance to accurate science, let alone 20th century science
that may be completely outdated a century from now.
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.1000719091313.17342A-100000@suma3>,
o_d...@my-deja.com
attacks...what am I asking. There's only one thing fanboys know how to
do...
So where do we begin
1. You know nothing of my career or what I do outside here. So anything
you say on that subject is as worthless and meaningless....as well
anything that comes out of your mouth.
2. I'm not doing Trekweb's reviews. I'm substituting for the regular
reviewer who can't do them right now. I like the site and they're fun
to do and since I post my opinions on an episode anyway after it airs,
it's hardly much of a departure from what I usually do.
3. I am proud though to be singlehandledy responsible for the collapse
of the franchise...but don't you people usually blame Braga for that?
In article <3975BBDC...@tyler.net>,
WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
>
>
> o_d...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
Tom Holt
from Cheryl Deering <dee...@primenet.com> contains these words:
> That cash flow (or drying up thereof) is the problem: people are not
> buying Trek merchandise hand-over-fist like they used to and sales
> have been declining for several years now.
Tragically, I don't think that's actually the case, at least not in
all sectors of the franchise. John Ordover claims that sales of Trek
novels have been rising steadily for some time.
Given that the quality of said books has been doing
John-Sheridan-on-Z'ha'Dum impressions down the toilet bowl ever since
Mr Ordover took over as officer i/c, is there any incentive to
improve quality, especially if such improvement is at the expense of output?
"If it's broke but they're too dumb to notice, don't fix it"
- Duane Schopenhauer, 'Maxims of Marketing,' xxv.20.
Travers Naran
> GVSE and Now and Again are dead. Behr's project is dead. Moore has gone
> to work on a show whose ass Voyager kicked in the ratings and which
> wasn't cancelled only as part and parcel of the Buffy negotiations and
> will be dead soon too. Now why is it that all these brillant geniuses
> end up on second rate shows that get cancelled as soon as they arrive.
> Maybe it's because they're brillant and misunderstood geniuses
> persecuted by a cruel and heartless world, or maybe they just suck.
> Occam's Razor seems to fall on the Suck side of the equation.
Matthew Murray, is that you? :-)
o_d...@my-deja.com
> the best techno babble out of the hat every week."
You're confusing Star Trek with ER. Star Trek is about exploring
strange new world...blah, blah, blah not screwed up people and their
screwed up relationships. This is SCi-Fi, not Soap opera.
"> 2. That ratings do not equal the spandix content of the character's
> costumes."
Ds9 had far more constume issues with an endless parade of Dabo bimbos
and the creation of a bimbo charachter like Leeta which displaced
actual charachters like Worf and O'Brien and existed just for her
cleavage...but you're not into firing Moore or Wolfe, now are you?
"> 3. He hasn't figured out that stories sell all of fiction and good
> stories is what makes people come back for more."
Since Voyager's ratings have stabilized it is clear that people are
coming back for more. Voyager has had some great stories, tonight's
Blink of an Eye is a great case in point. What other TV show can
feature charachters that are only on for a few minutes yet make this
enormous of an impact. What other show can give you the sense of an
entire world created within 40 minutes?
" > 5. That in the 24th century, man will have most of the same
failings > as he does today... and has for the past 5000 years..True
character > comes from overcoming personal weaknesses, not breeding
them out of > the gene pool."
What does that have to do with Voyager. Are you seriously going to
claim that Janeway, Torres, Paris and Co. lack personal weaknesses.
Furthermore Star Trek has always been based around the concept of human
improvement and the postulate that things will get better. If you don't
know this than you are clearly completely and utterly ignorant when it
comes to Star Trek.
Robert Johnston
Jerry Brown <je...@jwbrown.demon.co.uk.RemoveThisBitToReply> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:12:42 -0500, WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
>
> >Who can forget when Braga turned Janeway into a Newt?
>
> She got better.
Which of course leads us to the proper method for Paramount to get rid
of Braga--just ask him what is his favorite color.
Actually, replacing Braga with Terry Gilliam would be quite
interesting, in a disturbing sort of way. I like it!
Robert Johnston
--
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death
that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it
to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn
the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be
nothing. Only I will remain."--Bene Gesserit 'Litany against Fear'
David Patrick
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 o_d...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Voyager's technology makes as much sense as TNG and Ds9 technology and
> about as consistant as the tech of any show that ran as long as it did.
This is true, I'm not arguing that it isn't.
> This is SF after all, not popular mechanics. Plot is more important
> than allegiance to accurate science, let alone 20th century science
> that may be completely outdated a century from now.
The reason why I liked TNG and especially DS9 but I'm only lukewarm with
Voyager at best is that Voyager depends on bad science or a technobabble
particle of the week too often to get itself out of a problem. That's just
lazy writing.
DS9's strength was that it focused more on plot and characters than
Voyager ever has. Since its stronger in that regard its easier to overlook
the bad science.
David Patrick
William December Starr
o_d...@my-deja.com said:
> You know for all that the people who rant about how much they can do
> the job better than the proffesionals rant, they oddly enough all seem
> to hang on to their day jobs.
>
> Why not just put up or shut up for once...
Well, there _is_ the problem that (1) being able to do X very well and
(2) getting a job doing X (or acquiring the capital to hire yourself to
do it) are slightly different propositions.
In other words, it isn't _necessarily_ their fault that they aren't
putting up.
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
recook77
WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote in message
news:3975BBDC...@tyler.net...
>
>
> o_d...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > When you spend all your free time, when the only thing you seem
> > interested in, when your sole obsession is a minor TV writer and
> > producer whom you feel a bizarre need to post false rumors about and
> > convince the world of his evil...than you are a stalker. The reality is
> > you'd love Braga's job...hell you'd love to be a PA if nothing else.
> > But you're not and so you have to make up for it by stalking with and
> > posting constant attacks against him. This helps make you feel less
> > worthless by making him seem worthless
>
>
> "When you spend all your free time"..... Oh, this is rich, coming from
> a failed writer who's highest achievement in life is finally being
> allowed to write reviews for what is probably the saddest collection
> of fanboys on the web, TrekWeb. And who got that "plum" only because
> every other person who actually had talent grew so disgusted with
> the venue and the subject that they quit and refused to have anything
> to do with it anymore.
>
> Krutzler held his nose and "settled" for you, Odious. You're one
> of the measures of how far the franchise has fallen.
> --
>
> _________________________________________________WWS_____________
>
> Better stay there, where you're safe.
Luckily, some of the other Trekweb losers have chosen to remain in their
forum, instead of wasting bandwidth by coming to usenet.
ORDOVER
>all sectors of the franchise. John Ordover claims that sales of Trek
They have. The recent Star Trek: New Earth books, for example, are setting
sales records for us.
>Given that the quality of said books has been doing
>John-Sheridan-on-Z'ha'Dum impressions down the toilet bowl ever since
>Mr Ordover took over as officer i/c, is there any incentive to
>improve quality, especially if such improvement is at the expense of output?
If there are 100 Trek fans in a room, and 30 of 'em read our books regularly,
and we change our approach, and 70 of them read our books regularly, then we
are moving in the right direction.:) The idea, of course, is to provide the
kind of material that the fans actually like, not what someone thinks they
-should- like. :)
John Ordover
Executive Editor
Star Trek Fiction
Pocket Books
For more Trek Book Info:
www.startrekbooks.com
Cheryl Deering
>
> The message <397609B9...@primenet.com>
> from Cheryl Deering <dee...@primenet.com> contains these words:
>
> > That cash flow (or drying up thereof) is the problem: people are not
> > buying Trek merchandise hand-over-fist like they used to and sales
> > have been declining for several years now.
>
> all sectors of the franchise. John Ordover claims that sales of Trek
> novels have been rising steadily for some time.
In terms of the books, I agree (and stand corrected--g!) But in
terms of overall
merchandise moving, the franchise ain't doing it like it used to.
You don't automatically have people jumping to buy recent ST product
tie-in items (IIRC, the last two ST movies were surprisingly dismal
in terms of merchandise sales); as well, Paramount has dumped so
much dubious stuff out there that even the most rabid fan calls a
halt at some point--g! It seems like a lot of long-time fans just
aren't biting like they used to, and newer ones have a lot more
media merchadise competing for their dollar.
> Given that the quality of said books has been doing
> John-Sheridan-on-Z'ha'Dum impressions down the toilet bowl ever since
> Mr Ordover took over as officer i/c, is there any incentive to
> improve quality, especially if such improvement is at the expense of output?
Nope--g! But there have been enough signs of overall decline for
Paramount to get nervous--and rightly so.
C.
**
(You don't miss your water till your well runs dry. . .)
Paul Harper
>If there are 100 Trek fans in a room, and 30 of 'em read our books regularly,
>and we change our approach, and 70 of them read our books regularly, then we
>are moving in the right direction.:) The idea, of course, is to provide the
>kind of material that the fans actually like, not what someone thinks they
>-should- like. :)
Playing devils advocate (and not wishing to get into any sort of
writer-type bun-fight), but how much of the sale of these books are
outside the recognised fanbase - now and past?
Surely by satisfying more of a limited fan base, you risk alienating
more of a potentially wider non-fan base casual readership?
Paul (who doesn't read 'em anyway!)
--
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
" . . . SFX is a fairly useless publication on just
about every imaginable front. Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so
little, with so much, for so long." JMS.
WWS
o_d...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Actually in real life stalkers aren't all that stealthy, the Letterman
> stalker certainly wasn't. Obsession with a celebrity in a very public
> way are common hallmarks of the matter. When you create and obsessively
> spread false rumors about a celebrity, claim personal knowledge about
> said celebrity, spend most of your time obsessed with him and obsessed
> with either building up or tearing him down...you're a stalker with a
> problem. You can either admit to that problem and get help or it will
> just get worse.
Very good description of the person who put up that "Crusade Hate Page"
about a year ago. You gonna deny that was you?
--
_________________________________________________WWS_____________
You already admitted it once, "defender".
WWS
>
> WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote in message
(concerning TrekWeb)
> >
> > Better stay there, where you're safe.
recook77 wrote:
>
> Luckily, some of the other Trekweb losers have chosen to remain in their
> forum, instead of wasting bandwidth by coming to usenet.
Also, it's a lot harder to spoof addresses and create legions
of sockpuppets here than it is on a fanboy board. It's a
safe bet "dick cabeza" ain't ever going to show up outside
his own little manure pile.
--
_________________________________________________WWS_____________
Mike Henley
>" 1. Doesn't understands Trek is about characters and not who can pull
>> the best techno babble out of the hat every week."
>
>You're confusing Star Trek with ER. Star Trek is about exploring
>strange new world...blah, blah, blah not screwed up people and their
>screwed up relationships. This is SCi-Fi, not Soap opera.
And you are confusing character development with soap opera. Character
development is one thing, soap opera development is another. Soap opera
development is pseudo-character development. In other words, it's making
characters do things you know that they would not do for the sake of a plot.
And guess what? Even soap opera development is still more entertaining than
endless technobabble.
By the way, I do happen to agree with you on one point. "Blink of an Eye" was
one of the few Voyager episodes that have been any good this year.
My $0.02
Tom Thatcher
Paul Harper <pa...@harper.netNOSPAM> wrote:
>On 20 Jul 2000 13:23:29 GMT, ord...@aol.com (ORDOVER) wrote:
>
>>If there are 100 Trek fans in a room, and 30 of 'em read our books regularly,
>>and we change our approach, and 70 of them read our books regularly, then we
>>are moving in the right direction.:) The idea, of course, is to provide the
>>kind of material that the fans actually like, not what someone thinks they
>>-should- like. :)
>Surely by satisfying more of a limited fan base, you risk alienating
>more of a potentially wider non-fan base casual readership?
Ordover's task is to maximize the number of books sold. It could be
argued that the best way to do that is to cater to a narrow fan base
that only buys Trekkie(tm) books, rather than compete for the attention
of the larger group of genre readers who have hundreds of (better)
authors to choose from. And in fact, sales of Trekkie(tm) books has,
in fact, increased.
In the literary landscape, Ordover is a mountain climber, paid to
climb as high as possible and liable to lose his job if he doesn't
climb high enough. He chose to climb the mountain of semi-literate,
mass-produced formulaic Trekkie pulp, and has managed to climb higher
so far than any of his predessors. What some regular readers of this
newsgroup want is for Ordover to traverse across to the mountain of
well-crafted, deep, thought-provoking, almost SF, STAR TREK NOVELS.
It matter not that those books might be more satisfying to us to read;
only the ultimate height of the mountain matters. And the summits are
shrouded in mist. No one can say for sure that producing a better
quality product would increase total sales, by attracting non-Trekkie
genre buyers while retaining sales among the Trekkies. You can't
tell which mountain is higher, but you know you're pretty high on
the one you've chosen, so there's not a lot of incentive to switch.
John Ordover is a mountain climber, tasked with climbing as high as
possible,
climbing a mountain which is sales
of mass-produced semi-literate Trekkie books.
--
Tom Thatcher
University of Rochester Cancer Center
tt...@mail.rochester.edu
James Ellis
After I derided o_deus' defense of V'gers treknobabble ("SF has a
history of speculating about alternate physics and like those superhuman
alien beings with superhuman alien tech there's no real way to disprove
them."), he responded:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 o_d...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > And you're ignorant of Science Fiction.
<Chortle!>
> > Is Voyager's science really any better or worse than the Ansible in
> > Left Hand of Darkness, Babylon 5's Souls or TOS's claim that human
> > history was replicated on other worlds twice.
Is V'ger science worse than those you mention? Yes, no and no
respectively. However, focusing upon the worst elements of B5, which
was otherwise generally far superior in the science department to any of
the Treks, and of TOS, which often involved situations that were far
more imaginative than anything seen in the latter days of the Franchise
is hardly the point.
V'ger's treknobabble, which often cloaks itself in the mantle of real
scientific ideas and jargon, is regularly _wrong_. Fundamentally
wrong. _Provably_ wrong. You cannot defend the willfully ignorant and
counterfactual use of real science, as performed by one series, with
intentional use of fantastical elements by another.
IOW, you are trying to defend V'ger's rotten apples by hurling oranges
at me.
> > Fact is SF consists of some basic physics gotten right and a whole
> > lot of fantastic ideas behind it.
Whereas of late Trek has consisted largely of basic physics done
_wrong_, a whole lot of stale plots lifted from earlier incarnations of
Trek, and some mediocre drama. Wherefore is the SF?
> > Fanboys pick and choose which ones they want to whine about.
Is that why you are attacking DS9's "blockades in space", while at the
same time defending V'gers even-more puerile record when it comes to
science?
I say a curse upon all Paramount's houses!
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me? Lady, I'm your worst nightmare - a pumpkin with a gun.
[...] Euminides this! " - Mervyn, the Sandman #66
-------------------------------------------------------------------